Last week we featured a guest post by Stephen Bridenstine about the invisibility of Native American reservations on Google Maps, and how this affects our awareness of geographic and social realities. The flip side of ignoring some information about our country is what we do choose to draw attention to.

Over a year ago, Charlotte C. sent in a photo of a sign she noticed in downtown Fall City, Washington, about 25 miles east of Seattle. The sign includes several milestones for the area. The first significant event worthy of note is the first time a White person laid eyes on nearby Snoqualmie Falls:

This reminded me of a photo I took of a monument near the Black Hills in South Dakota. The monument is for Anna (or Annie) Tallent, a woman who was a teacher and superintendent of schools for Pennington County. While the monument mentions she was a “teacher and author,” her major claim to fame appears to be that she was the “first White woman to enter the Black Hills”:

Text:

In Memory of Anna Donna Tallent

Teacher and Author

Born in New York State, April 12, 1827. Died in Sturgis, S. Dakota, February 13, 1901.

The first White woman to enter the Black Hills, arriving in Custer City in December 1874.

This monument is erected by the Society of Black Hills Pioneers and many admirers.

“The world is better because she lived and served in it.”

The monument to her achievements fails to note that in 1874, when she entered the Black Hills, the region was part of the Great Sioux Reservation and were not legally available to Whites for settlement. The U.S. Cavalry removed her entire party for setting up an illegal gold mining encampment on land that was clearly owned by the Sioux, according to an 1868 treaty with the U.S. government…a treaty the government quit honoring soon after Whites found out there was gold in the Black Hills, which the the federal government confiscated in 1877. Tallent discussed the illegal land invasions (including her expedition’s efforts to avoid detection by government officials) in her 1899 book The Black Hills, Or, The Last Hunting Ground of the Dakotahs, in which she laments the “mournful” state of the Sioux nation but rhetorically asks whether it’s appropriate to honor treaties that “arrest the advance of civilization” (p. 3) and, generally, presents a racist, condescending depiction of Native Americans as pathetic, sad “savages” whose displacement in the name of progress and civilization was inevitable.

So what story about our nation do these two monuments tell? The only information contained on the two-sided Fall City monument refers to the activities of Whites; the Native residents were important only when they lost land. For all intents and purposes, the history of the area started only once a White man had set eyes on it. Similarly, Tallent’s arrival in the Black Hills is memorable largely because she was a White woman, whose presence is by definition worthy of note and celebration — imagine, a vulnerable White woman braving the wildness of the Dakota territory! The fact that she was an illegal prospector camping on land she didn’t own while in the pursuit of quick wealth is neither worth mentioning nor a cause to question whether she’s a laudable figure deserving of a monument. Thus, the effect of both of these monuments is to normalize colonization and illegal settlement, and present the arrival of Whites as the beginning of meaningful history.

Gwen Sharp is an associate professor of sociology at Nevada State College. You can follow her on Twitter at @gwensharpnv.

Comments 51

Bill Thayer — June 7, 2011

I agree by and large, but this isn't absolutely quite fair. Although it's true that we often have an attitude that what happened before Europeans came — and you're on target pointing out that despite initial good intentions as to honoring treaties and using the army to displace illegal European settlement, the U. S. government then caved in — there's something else going on too.

History is measured by what's been recorded. We can't remember or discuss history if nothing's been recorded, and that in turn depends on writing. So while we can speak of dishonesty in other cases — for example the Spaniards destroying written records of the Mexican civilizations, so that history could be forced to start with the Spanish conquest — in the U. S. we just don't have anything to talk about.

m — June 7, 2011

What's most telling about the normalization is how little reflection these monuments get - here we have two people who got immortalized for looking at something and being at some place when we know how unlikely it is that they were complete white spots before. It's gone so far that you can't even make a decent parody

Sarah — June 7, 2011

Interesting the parallels between these monuments and what's taught in schools (or at least what was taught to me in my youth) -- that the New World was "discovered" by a white man, even though of course people had been living there for many years before he ever arrived. I suppose it was a way of telling "our" history in the almost all-white school I went to, but the story would have made much more sense to the children if it had started at the logical place - the beginning.

Grizzly — June 7, 2011

This is off topic, but in the first picture, I was surprised to see just ten years between "First white sees Snoqualmie Falls" and "Snoqualmie Indians cede land to U.S."

Bill Thayer — June 7, 2011

I agree; it's not off-topic. The European push to grab land was extremely vigorous; and was often accompanied by a similar push to obliterate the prior history, sometimes conscious as with the Spaniards in Mexico, sometimes not. Not all Europeans behaved this way, mind you; not only some European groups less than others, but also within a group (like the Anglo-Americans) some people less than others: some of the U. S. government's Indian agents in the 1st half of the 19c, government employees though they might have been, were conscientious men who went to bat against the government for the native Americans, and were respected and honored by them. Two guys come to mind right off the cuff: John Beach (buried next to Chief Wapello in Iowa), and John C. Casey (http://tinyurl.com/JohnCaseyWPT).

Anonymous — June 7, 2011

It also matters who put up the signs/monuments, and when. A private sector "historical society" (eg a community group, not a national or even statewide institutional historical group) is more likely to recognize local, personalized accounts than the overall picture. If a great-great-grandfather passed down his stories of how his great-grandfather was the first to see the pacific, what will be recalled will be from that point of view. And monuments like the latter erected in (presumably) the very early part of the 20th century will surely be biased towards the "white" settlements and acheivements because, well, unfortunately "yay European folks who came in and made this area great!" was the predominant culture of the day. I'm rather certain you'll find modern national/state/federal monuments much more enlightened these days.

CollenK — June 7, 2011

In 1991 the National Park Service changed the name of a national monument because of the need to be more transparent about what happened and NOT give just the European settlers perspective. The Custer Battlefield National Monument became the Little Bighorn Battlefield National Monument. It is the site of the most famous battle of the Sioux War in which the native's won. Now, in addition to the memorial of the US cavalry soldiers there are memorials to the natives that also died. The memorial interprets the battle to visitors by showing the whole story and not just one side. It is also focused on building bridges and fostering peace rather than just sharing the details of a bloody battle.

I think it shows great maturity for a country to be able to admit when it has erred and fix the problem. We have some not so pleasant things in our past as a country and there is nothing wrong with talking about those mistakes and recognizing them on our monuments and historical markers.

Heather — June 7, 2011

I have always been bemused by the "first man to see X thing" trope. Its as though, upon a white guy seeing a big mountain, all the regional people collectively slapped their foreheads and said "Oh, wow, so that's a mountain there! Funny how I never noticed it before." At least the memorial for Ms. Tallent distinguishes her as "The first white woman ..."

Lillian — June 7, 2011

I highly recommend the book Lies Across America on this very topic.

Amanda — June 7, 2011

I was thinking about these topics when I recently visited the State Capitol of Texas. The main atrium has a very nice mosaic on the floor showing the seals of "the six countries whose flags have flown over Texas." (France, Spain, Mexico, the Republic of Texas, the Confederate States, and the U.S., if you're wondering.) I thought it was interesting how this mosaic gives the impression of providing a comprehensive overview of the story of Texas, going back quite far - well, a few hundred years. But it completely erases the Native Americans, who lived on that land for probably thousands of years before white people showed up. The story that the Texas State Capitol tells is not a story that includes Native Americans.

To be fair, our tour guide did at least mention native peoples. But the art and architecture of the Capitol building does not.

Aoirthoir — June 7, 2011

"As indians got assimilated, I’m usre that a lot of that was written down, as a lot of western history has been. "

So then your ignorance of that written down history is nothing short of erasure of it and the peoples those histories were about.

"Just because something is witten doesn’t mean that it’s reliable, and a lot of what we consider history, like Alexander the Great, Joan of Arc and other such profiles are blurring the lines between legend and history already."

Sure. That's why you have to use reliable sources, multiple sources, sources from the time of the events. Actually we have lots and lots of those. Modern mythologizing does not remove the historicity recorded at the events themeslves.

"To only hold such strict demends on non-white history is a double standard."

Except we're not holding such strict demands on non-white history only. They same rigorous demands are applied by actual historians for European history. Real historians do note the difference between legends and histories. The claim that there is one standard for white history (we'll just accept any legend no matter how ridiculous it is) and another for non-white is patently false.

"What would you add to the Snoqualmie marker in ten or fifteen words, though?"

Not sure about there, but at other places, and in schools, the history channel and such I would first start noting that the Aztecs were not limited to Mexico as so many think. They were as far north as Colorado and beyond. Then those Aztecs living in these United States can get the legal recognition they deserve.

"Interesting the parallels between these monuments and what’s taught in schools (or at least what was taught to me in my youth) — that the New World was “discovered” by a white man, even though of course people had been living there for many years before he ever arrived."

It WAS discovered by white men. Just as I DISCOVERED Caramel when I was 12 or so. I don't know what history lessons you had but the existence of predecessors to Europeans was noted quite accurately in mine. Frankly the problem isn't that the history books teach the discovery of the Americas by Europeans. The problem is that the WRONG Europeans are often credited. Europe knew about the Americas much much sooner than we're told.

"Similar to how, at a youth education level, all we learn about Carthage is related to its effects on Rome."

But doesn't that show bias? Surely we all just hate ancient Cathagians and are trying to keep a great big secret?

"It also matters who put up the signs/monuments, and when. A private sector “historical society” (eg a community group, not a national or even statewide institutional historical group) is more likely to recognize local, personalized accounts than the overall picture. "

Right. The solution then is to put up our own monuments. It's not really that hard to compete with these tiny plaques.

"I think it shows great maturity for a country to be able to admit when it has erred and fix the problem. We have some not so pleasant things in our past as a country and there is nothing wrong with talking about those mistakes and recognizing them on our monuments and historical markers."

Precisely.

"I have always been bemused by the 'first man to see X thing' trope. Its as though, upon a white guy seeing a big mountain, all the regional people collectively slapped their foreheads and said 'Oh, wow, so that’s a mountain there! Funny how I never noticed it before.'"

Yeah. Just like when all those people used to say "Jimmy was the first of our family to go to college." That made people not in that family slap their foreheads and say "Oh wow! So there's a College there! I never noticed it before!"

At least the memorial for Ms. Tallent distinguishes her as 'The first white woman …'"

Well thank Goddess you don't have double standards.

GIlbert Pinfold — June 8, 2011

I think the author of this post discredits her argument by the gratuitous slurs against the white woman. One thing we do associate with Native American culture is respect for their ancestors.

TIAS — June 11, 2011

AOIRTHOIR - despite your protestations to the contrary in the comments in the previous post, you are not behaving in good faith. Not with your repeated jibes at "the left" and your willingness to excuse the other commenters that are disagreeing with the authors of the blog. That doesn't mean that I'm not willing to think about and consider what you're saying, though.

The tone argument is used to dismiss what people are saying based on their tone, and he is dismissing the argument based on the usage of a slur - which, again, I don't see. Sure looks pretty similar. You are very right about not using one ism against another ism - but again, where is it in this post?

"But, you know that this happens so much on the left, that no one really gives a rip anymore about being called out on anything by them. It’s why so many people just say “oh well you’re just trying to force me to be PC, see ya later.”"

Yeah, and as to that, it looks more like they weren't willing to consider what was being said anyway and just looking for and excuse to dismiss what was said.

Carolyn — June 17, 2011

When the French exchange students who came to my high school visited Ft. Harrodsburg, KY, with their hosts, we saw this sign in a cemetery outside the fort:

http://i.imgur.com/jcpC8.jpg

One of the American kids commented on how ridiculous that was, and this post reminded me of it.

Travis Seifman — July 14, 2011

I don't disagree with you that there are serious discursive issues here, in terms of whose story is told, in terms of which version of history is propagated, etc. I understand where you're coming from, and I don't entirely disagree.

Yet, I think that we also must consider that the answer to the question, "whose history do monuments tell?" is quite often "they tell the history of whatever group made the effort to have there be a monument there."

Look around the country, and you will find monuments, plaques, etc. not only to white history, or white settler history, but to African-American, Chinese, Jewish, and native Hawaiian history. You will find thousands of individuals and groups, organizations, societies, dedicated to preserving and promoting the history of their particular ethnic, religious, or other group. And these are the people, often as not, who took the initiative to have signs or monuments erected. You can see signs on historic stores in San Francisco Japantown whose owners were incarcerated during WWII; a statue of Confucius in New York City; countless signs and monuments to native history and culture all across Hawaii.

So, to some extent, and I'm not saying this is the end all be all of the situation, but to some extent, perhaps it is simply a case of certain groups (whites) being more fond of plaques and monuments, more attuned to the use of those as a means to express and celebrate and mark history... And maybe the Native Americans have simply chosen not to appropriate that.